No abstract

Currently, no evidence exists as to the effectiveness of strongman training programs for performance enhancement. This study compared the effects of 7 weeks of strongman resistance training vs. traditional resistance training on body composition, strength, power, and speed measures. Thirty experienced resistance-trained rugby players were randomly assigned to one of the 2 groups; strongman (n = 15; mean ± SD: age, 23.4 ± 5.6 years; body mass, 91.2 ± 14.8 kg; height, 180.1 ± 6.8 cm) or traditional (n = 15; mean ± SD: age, 22.5 ± 3.4 years; body mass, 93.7 ± 12.3 kg; height, 181.3 ± 5.9 cm). The strongman and traditional training programs required the participants to train twice a week and contained exercises that were matched for biomechanical similarity with equal loading. Participants were assessed for body composition, strength, power, speed, and change of direction (COD) performance. Within-group analyses indicated that all performance measures improved with training (0.2-7%) in both the strongman and traditional training groups. No significant between-group differences were observed in functional performance measures after 7 weeks of resistance training. Between-group differences indicated small positive effects in muscle mass and acceleration performance and large improvements in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bent over row strength associated with strongman compared with traditional training. Small to moderate positive changes in 1RM squat and deadlift strength, horizontal jump, COD turning ability, and sled push performance were associated with traditional compared with strongman training. Practitioners now have the first evidence on the efficacy of a strongman training program, and it would seem that short-term strongman training programs are as effective as traditional resistance training programs in improving aspects of body composition, muscular function, and performance.

No abstract

Purpose: We compared running economy (RE) and 3-km time-trial (TT) performances of male recreational runners wearing the Nike Vaporfly 4% (NIKE), lightweight racing flats (FLAT), and their habitual footwear (OWN). Methods: Eighteen male recreational runners [age: 33.5 (11.9) y, V̇O2peak: 55.8 (4.4) mL·kg-1·min-1] attended 4 sessions ~7 days apart. The first session consisted of a V̇O2peak test to inform subsequent RE speeds set at 60, 70, and 80% of the speed eliciting V̇O2peak. In subsequent sessions, treadmill RE and 3-km TT were assessed in the three footwear in a randomised, counterbalanced crossover design. Results: RE was improved in NIKE (3.6 to 4.5%, p ≤ 0.002) and FLAT (2.4 to 4.0%, p ≤ 0.042) versus OWN across intensities, with a trivial difference between NIKE and FLAT (1.0 to 1.6%, p ≥ 0.325). NIKE 3-km TT (11:07.6 ± 0:56.6 mm:ss) was superior to OWN by 16.6 s (2.4%, p = 0.005) and FLAT by 13.0 s (1.8%, , p = 0.032), with similar times between OWN and FLAT (0.5%, , p = 0.747). Only 29% of runners were more economical across intensities and faster in NIKE. Conclusions: Overall, our findings indicate that NIKE could benefit RE in male recreational runners at relative speeds when compared to OWN, but not when compared to FLAT. More runners exhibited better TT performances in NIKE (61%) versus FLAT (22%) and OWN (17%). The high variability in individual RE (-3.1 to 12.1%) and TT (-3.8 to 8.2%) shoe-responses suggests that individualisation of running footwear prescription is warranted.